At least 128 underage University of Illinois students were so inebriated that their friends had to call 911 for emergency medical attention last fall.

But those students avoided being ticketed or arrested by police because of a little-publicized state law that grants amnesty to them in medical emergencies and prevents discipline in most circumstances.

While the university police said they do not keep track of these numbers, the Office of Student Conflict Resolution Director Bob Wilcynski said he personally tracks the numbers when the office receives the right referral forms.

The Illinois Medical Amnesty Policy was passed in 2015 to encourage underage students to seek help during alcohol-related medical emergencies without fear of arrest. It was considered “a get out of jail free” card for underage drinkers on campus during medical emergencies. 

“Ultimately, we want students to practice safe drinking behaviors. I’m never going to stop underage drinking. I just want to make it more safe,” Wilczynski said in an interview with CU-CitizenAccess.

Campus police, which often respond to the medical emergencies, said medical amnesty usage itself cannot be tracked in a meaningful or quantifiable way by the department. Captain Jason Bradley of the University of Illinois Police Department said the nature of the policy makes systematic data collection extremely difficult for the department.

“It’s hard to track what isn’t really out there … it’s hard to track a negative, because that’s kind of what it is,” Bradley said.

Unlike conduct cases, Bradley said medical amnesty calls are not logged as violations and do not result in punishments, meaning there is no formal mechanism for the department that categorizes or records how often amnesty is invoked. Bradley said officers respond with a safety-first approach rather than paperwork and offenses.

“As soon as anybody calls 911, our focus is safety when we get there,” Bradley said. 

Interviews by CU-CitizenAccess with students suggest the policy has seen limited use because some students fear that repeat alcohol-related incidents can still trigger disciplinary consequences. Although the statute shields students from underage possession or consumption charges in qualifying emergencies, patterns of repeated violations may still be noted by officials. 

As a result, some students said they were hesitant to contact authorities and questioned how effectively the policy functions in practice.

One senior at the university used this policy in September to call help for their friend and said they were hesitant to use the policy based on lack of knowledge about it.

“I was scared about mentioning his age so I didn’t do so over the call since I wasn’t aware what the underage amnesty policies were when it came to calling the authorities,” they said. “I think if I had knowledge of the amnesty policy, I definitely would’ve considered calling sooner or as an option that doesn’t seem as the last resort.”

Wilczynski said he believes there are many policies that the campus is not aware of because “it takes a lot of discipline in order for someone to want to seek them out and become more educated about them.” 

“Are there opportunities for marketing campaigns? Yes,” Wilczynski said. 

University frequently records student alcohol violations

Alcohol-related violations remained a substantial portion of campus conduct cases during the 2024–25 academic year. The student discipline statistics show 230 violations for underage possession or consumption of alcohol, making it one of the most cited student offenses.

An additional seven cases involved providing alcohol to minors, while there were no reported cases involving communal alcohol practices such as kegs, drinking games or open parties.

Sanctions and discipline tied to these violations often emphasized education. The university issued 227 referrals to the “Creating Alternative Alcohol Plans” workshop, 18 assessments through the Alcohol and Other Drug Program and assigned 341 reflective writing submissions connected to disciplinary outcomes. 

Demographic data shows first-year students accounted for 35.4% of all who were reported for potential violations of the Student Code. Sophomores made up 37.7%, indicating underclass students remain the majority of students accused of violations. 

Medical costs a greater concern than discipline, some students say

Another senior studying electrical engineering and computer science said their understanding of the policy focuses on prioritizing safety over legal consequences.

“What I thought it meant was, if someone is in a critical condition where there’s anything illegal going on and you need medical attention, you won’t get charged for using something illegally,” they said. 

A different senior has used the policy themselves and emphasized the protective aspect of the policy.

“For anyone, you don’t get prosecuted or charged for such instances,” they said. 

However, multiple of the students interviewed noted that students often weigh other practical concerns, particularly costs associated with medical attention. 

“People are more hesitant about the fees … more than the amnesty. People are very hesitant about the ambulance fees and transport fees,” one of the seniors said, who added that financial burdens may discourage students from fully utilizing the policy. 

Wilczynski, who regularly reviews student conduct cases, said there is always going to be a cost for protecting one’s safety.

“When you choose to go beyond the stretches of safety, whether it be through your personal consumption or the environmental protections you place yourself, there’s going to be a cost benefit analysis if you require medical intervention … there’s going to be a cost to that and it’s not cheap,” Wilczynski said. “I think ultimately people are going to be less inclined to use it if there’s the hospital bill attached. But in serious situations, just making sure it’s publicly known as a resource is important.”

One student said while serious emergencies prompt intervention, less severe situations, such as intoxication at social events, might not always lead students to call for help.

Multiple students suggested that earlier and more consistent education could improve utilization of the policy.

“Lack of awareness of the policy is rather concerning and honestly should be something that is taught to us in some sort of workshops that freshmen have to go through as a part of their orientation,” one student said.

The university currently shares information about the policy regularly as part of ACE IT, a required alcohol and drug training for freshman and transfer students under 21. The training takes about 45 minutes to complete and is self-guided on Canvas, a digital learning platform also used for classes.

Kristin Manzi, ACE IT program coordinator, said the workshop is the first exposure many university students have to information like the medical amnesty policy.

“Anecdotally, I would say that the majority of students raise their hands or confirm in the positive that they are aware of the policy, or are reminded once we describe it even if the name is not familiar,” Manzi said in an email. “We regularly rotate the amnesty policy into our social media messaging and will host our annual Spring Into Safer Substance Use campaign leading up to Unofficial/Spring Break.”

Privacy also plays a central role in student trust. One senior said medical amnesty ensures confidentiality and anonymity.

Another student said the priority remains the safety of those in need.

 “I think the big thing was just ensuring the safety of the person who needed assistance. I think that’s ultimately the number one thing,” they said.

Community sought protections before 2015 amnesty law passed

The Illinois liquor statute outlines the state’s underage alcohol restrictions and the conditions under which limited amnesty applies. The law prohibits anyone under 21 from purchasing, possessing or consuming alcoholic beverages, and violations are classified as a Class A misdemeanor.

Within the same statute, lawmakers introduced protections intended to reduce harm in medical emergencies. It states, among other conditions, that “minors who request medical assistance for someone who appears to need help due to alcohol consumption may not be charged for underage possession or consumption if they provide their name, remain at the scene and cooperate with first responders.” 

The provision also applies to up to three individuals who act together during the incident.

The statute specifies that these protections apply only to underage possession and consumption. It does not shield individuals from charges related to supplying alcohol, carrying false identification or other offenses.

Additional immunity applies in cases of sexual assault reporting. It states that individuals who report an assault, request medical care or seek forensic services, either for themselves or another person, are protected from underage alcohol possession or consumption charges if they remain on scene when required and cooperate with authorities or the reporting agency.

For years before formal rulemaking, University of Illinois police and student groups operated under an informal understanding that students who called for medical help during alcohol-related emergencies would not be punished. This practice laid the foundation for later efforts to formalize protections and encourage early intervention.

In 2012, the Illinois Student Senate and other student advocates requested explicit medical amnesty language to be added to the Student Code, one of the earliest organized efforts to standardize university responses to alcohol-related medical calls. Their efforts emerged from years of campus advocacy intended to protect underage students who sought emergency care. 

On April 15, 2013, the Urbana-Champaign Senate Committee on Student Discipline unanimously approved the Medical Amnesty and Good Samaritan procedures, marking the first official step toward adding these provisions to formal sanctioning guidelines.

In early 2013, state lawmakers introduced the Alcohol Poisoning Immunity bill, which intended to amend the Liquor Control Act to establish limited immunity for underage drinkers who requested assistance. 

News reports noted that the bill closely mirrored the policy being developed on campus, showing that both the university and the state were moving toward similar protections. However, the bill was tabled in March that year. 

Two years later, on Aug. 24, 2015, Governor Bruce Rauner signed immunity legislation, effective Jan. 1, 2016. House Bill 1336 amended the Liquor Control Act to grant limited legal protection for minors who sought emergency medical help for alcohol-related incidents.

From 2016 onward, the Office for Student Conflict Resolution incorporated medical amnesty and survivor protections policies into the Student Code. The university made these guidelines publicly accessible and conducted periodic outreach to clarify how protections worked.